The new study compares two different types of fear of hate crime measures and test the effects of question wording on perceived threat of hate crime among vulnerable groups. The two types of fear of hate crime measures are diffuse and episodic. The study found that the extent of experiencing episodic threat of hate crime was smaller when compared to the level of perceived diffuse or general threat. Worry and fear-based questions lead to higher reported perceived threat of hate crime than safety-based questions.
The study found variability in perceptions of threat across diffuse and episodic measures. When examining the simple proportions of the sample that reported diffuse threat of hate crime versus episodic threat of hate crime in the past six months, the three question wordings (worry, fear, and safety) lead to similar conclusions. Across all three wordings, a substantial proportion of respondents reported some level of diffuse threat of hate crime, but threatening events were rather low in prevalence, frequency, and magnitude. The observed differences between diffuse and episodic measures may be attributable in part to different aspects of threat captured by these two types of threat measures.
The study also found that vulnerable groups of individuals (such as non-Christian/no religion, sexual minorities, disabled persons , and female and/or transgender) reported more perceived diffuse and episodic threats about their respective types of hate crime compared to the whole sample. However, diffuse measures produced higher levels of perceived threat than episodic measures.
Regarding question wording, the study found that worry- and fear-based questions lead to higher reported perceived threat of hate crime than safety-based questions, even after accounting for individual variations in hate crime-related characteristics. This suggests that different wordings can frame or shape respondents’ mental representations of how to respond to questions. Worry and fear, as affective perceptions, may highlight a negative emotional reaction to a potential victimization. Conversely, perceived safety as a cognitive perception focuses on the assessment of victimization risk.
The study suggests that diffuse measures may assess a generalized image of threat or broader concerns about crime rather than everyday experiences associated with subjective threat. The study also suggests that the mixed findings in the literature regarding the links to other variables, such as victimization and demographics, may be a result of the use of different question wordings across studies.
Overall, the study provides insight into the effects of question wording on perceived threat of hate crime and suggests that researchers should consider these effects when designing and interpreting surveys related to hate crime. The study also highlights the importance of understanding the different types of fear of hate crime measures and the potential differences in the aspects of threat captured by these measures.